In China, urban growth and exponential increases in energy use are forcing the powers that be to explore every option—including large-scale natural gas transportation from the Gobi desert to the nation’s megacities. As The Wall Street Journal reports, “The energy deal comes amid growing efforts by the Chinese government to control the pollution resulting from the unprecedented growth of its economy. China has set a target to cut its carbon intensity, or the carbon-dioxide emissions needed for each unit of economic growth, by about 17% from 2011 through 2015.”

The hope is that this massive pipeline, part of an agreement between US-based GreatPoint Energy and Chinese industrial conglomerate Wanxiang, can help the country meet its energy needs without increasing air pollution. GreatPoint will be using coal-conversion technology (using a metal-based catalyst and water in a single-step process) to convert coal mined in the Gobi desert to natural gas, which can then be transported via pipeline. Another bonus, “GreatPoint’s systems use one-third of the water required by any other coal-gasification plants that his team could find in a worldwide search—an important factor to consider when setting up a gas plant in the desert.”

This project is enticing because it can supply much-needed natural gas at a lower price than the costs associated with building a new power plant or importing natural gas from foreign suppliers. For some, China’s willingness to embrace new energy technologies makes it the perfect environment for this type of project.

“I don’t think [GreatPoint’s] technology would get built into a plant in the US right now,” Ray Lane (managing partner with Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and a GreatPoint board member) is quoted as remarking in The Wall Street Journal. “Maybe 10 years ago, maybe 10 years from now, yes, but not now from lack of funding. The banks here wouldn’t do it. It’s more affordable to develop it in China and Russia. . . . Our role will be to make the technology work at large scale there. If you make one work, I guarantee there will be 30 more in the world in the next decade, and banks will line up to fund them all.”

So what do you think? What are the implications of a technology that can reduce CO2 emissions and reduce the water use associated with traditional coal-gasification plants? Do you agree with Ray Lane when he blames funding for the reason why China—rather than the US—is able to capitalize on this technology? And how far does this technology go towards assuaging the current environmental concerns associated with traditional natural gas power generation?

************************

Upcoming Forester University Webinars

February 23rd, 2012
Stormwater Pond BMP Management: Design, Operation & Maintenance
Stormwater ponds are one of the most common urban rainwater runoff BMPs thanks to their reliability and predictability, but performance is design and maintenance dependent. Join Shahram (Shane) Missaghi of the University of Minnesota to explore stormwater pond design, operation and maintenance presented in an integrated stormwater pond management plan that effectively manages your stormwater and protects the water quality of your natural resources. Read more…

March 8th, 2012
Reducing Water, Energy, and Tax Bills for Facilities
Are you overpaying on your facility’s three largest variable costs: water, energy, and taxes? Join Fraser Allport, CEO, to explore how to reduce your facility’s utility and tax bills and future-proof for sustained performance by combing green technologies (green hardware and smart software) with government tax incentives in a cost-reduction action plan designed to obtain, quantifiable and sustainable resource and cost-savings results. Read more…

What Do You Think?

The fact that "the powers that be" in China, together with well-funded Silicon Valley partners, are pursuing this (essentially prototype) idea is no guarantee that it makes ultimate sense from an EROEI perspective, much less any environmental wisdom.
The modern world's addiction to growth and to cheap fossil fuels has us (collectively) going pretzel shape to keep it going on almost any terms--2,400 mile pipelines?--and at almost any (financial or environmental) cost.
The sad part of this story is how it represents the failure of imagination, and the failure of mankind to meet its true innovative potential.

Post a Comment

Note from the Editor:The content that appears in our "Comments" section is supplied to us by outside, third-party readers, and organizations and does not necessarily reflect the view of our staff or Forester Media—in fact, we may not agree with it—and we do not endorse, warrant, or otherwise take responsibility for any content supplied by third parties that appear on our website. All comments are subject to approval.